Not sure if you are aware of this article at the most recent TAS issue (or if it has been mentioned elsewhere here at WBF), but I found it interesting and informative as for how some of the most succesfull audio designers (9 including Pass, Rowland, Curl and Lamm) think about the future of amplifier design, new technology implementation and their thinking behind tube and/or SS designs - I enjoyed reading it.
Not sure if you are aware of this article at the most recent TAS issue (or if it has been mentioned elsewhere here at WBF), but I found it interesting and informative as for how some of the most succesfull audio designers (9 including Pass, Rowland, Curl and Lamm) think about the future of amplifier design, new technology implementation and their thinking behind tube and/or SS designs - I enjoyed reading it.
I have posted about it and quoted it in another thread. However, as it is a paid magazine and for many of our members all amplifiers sound so similar that they do not affect of preferences significantly , it did not generate much interest in the positive sense.
The series of articles it is really interesting - a pity that the articles are too short. Also, considering the interest shown in Mark Levinson, Burmester and Dartzeel I would also enjoy to read the opinions of their designers.
Although described as a roundtable, it isn't really, rather a set of (5) questions posed to each designer separately. Interesting nonetheless, although a true roundtable, even with fewer participants, could have been even better. One wonders how, if all amplifiers sound the same (and are already "perfect"), how there can be so much difference in design approach and implementation.
One can also wonder how (if all amplifiers sound the same) the sonic differences between DAC's are all due to differences in their analog stages (since they should all sound the same).
Remember guys, as long as all amplifiers meet the Ethan criteria, they all will sound identical because he said so. It doesn't matter if the circuit topologies are wildly different, and it doesn't matter how much was spent on high quality parts for the circuit execution. As long as the four parameters that Ethan laid out are met, the amps are going to sound identical. Therefore, there is no need to have a roundtable discussion with men who have spent their lives designing audio amplifiers because all good amplifiers sound exactly alike anyway.
What we need is a therapy group for people who are delusional enough to believe that amplifiers actually do sound different. I have to go now. I'm putting up my ARC VS115 for sale and I'm switching over to a Pioneer receiver.
What we need is a therapy group for people who are delusional enough to believe that amplifiers actually do sound different. I have to go now. I'm putting up my ARC VS115 for sale and I'm switching over to a Pioneer receiver.
If you get the ones withthe chip amp E Geddes measured you will have a very nice amp with the right sort of load
IOW no real low impedance with low efficenacy.
Virtually no high order harmonic distortion , distortion that decreased in a linear fashion as volume is decreased and almost no zero
crossover distortion. Great receipe for a good amp.
Not sure if you are aware of this article at the most recent TAS issue (or if it has been mentioned elsewhere here at WBF), but I found it interesting and informative as for how some of the most succesfull audio designers (9 including Pass, Rowland, Curl and Lamm) think about the future of amplifier design, new technology implementation and their thinking behind tube and/or SS designs - I enjoyed reading it.
Kinda curious Do you remember who first started doing these round tables probably 20 years ago? They empaneled some good people back then. Since don't have that issue here, wonder how that would compare to this recent panel? (Didn't you find it curious that D'Agostino wasn't included in the TAS piece?)
Then again all amps sound the same so what's the point? I could have bought 70 Pioneer receivers for the price of my amps. But then again, the only amps that sound different are broken or poor designs.
Remember guys, as long as all amplifiers meet the Ethan criteria, they all will sound identical because he said so. It doesn't matter if the circuit topologies are wildly different, and it doesn't matter how much was spent on high quality parts for the circuit execution. As long as the four parameters that Ethan laid out are met, the amps are going to sound identical. Therefore, there is no need to have a roundtable discussion with men who have spent their lives designing audio amplifiers because all good amplifiers sound exactly alike anyway.
What we need is a therapy group for people who are delusional enough to believe that amplifiers actually do sound different. I have to go now. I'm putting up my ARC VS115 for sale and I'm switching over to a Pioneer receiver.
I coincide that the interviews were quite short, and by trying to keep the same line on questions there were little room for particular comments on why any given designer followed X or Y topology. I am not sure that the major conclusion from such interviews was that "all amps sound the same" (I could be wrong here), but more about the consensus of the new challenges of amp design regarding parts quality, new technology (class D) and an optimistic vision of the future.
I coincide that the interviews were quite short, and by trying to keep the same line on questions there were little room for particular comments on why any given designer followed X or Y topology. I am not sure that the major conclusion from such interviews was that "all amps sound the same" (I could be wrong here), but more about the consensus of the new challenges of amp design regarding parts quality, new technology (class D) and an optimistic vision of the future.
My comments (and I'm sure Mark's and Myles') were more directed at the opinions expressed by some forum members in other topics on this board. I'm sure the three of us don't think all amplifiers sound the same, nor do any of the designers interviewed by TAS, although there was a clear trend toward saying that good sounding amplifiers sound more alike now than in the past.
My comments (and I'm sure Mark's and Myles') were more directed at the opinions expressed by some forum members in other topics on this board. I'm sure the three of us don't think all amplifiers sound the same, nor do any of the designers interviewed by TAS, although there was a clear trend toward saying that good sounding amplifiers sound more alike now than in the past.
No I was being a smart ass. And usually tube equipment is eliminated rights off the top since tube amps use inferior technology. One things for sure: Krell doesn't sound like Mark Levinson and we can agree that both are competent designs.
My comments (and I'm sure Mark's and Myles') were more directed at the opinions expressed by some forum members in other topics on this board. I'm sure the three of us don't think all amplifiers sound the same, nor do any of the designers interviewed by TAS, although there was a clear trend toward saying that good sounding amplifiers sound more alike now than in the past.
But their were exceptions with this comment, such as Nelson Pass "Have the sounds of tubed and solid-state electronics converged toward a common neutrality in the past 20 years?
No, just the opposite. Anything resembling convergence to objective neutrality occurred in the late 60s and early 70s, and since then tubes and solidstate have diverged, catering to different needs and tastes."
And several responders did not mention a convergence to neutrality, but referred to a convergence to natural sound.
These divergences are in part why the articles are interesting.
, it did not generate much interest in the positive sense. 
